Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Norway Attacked
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:35 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Captain Corea wrote:

I've contributed numerous links and sources to this discussion. If you bothered to read through the thread, you'd see that.

Calling me cowardly and such just because I don't always come out with strong opinions on every issue isn't needed.

When I have a strong opinion, I state it. When I don't, I may ask questions or post links that explore other options. When I see statements that ring false to me, I ask after them.

If you don't like that style of posting, don't fret. There's nothing obligating you to reply to me.

Maybe he took offense to your calling people "pathetic" earlier. No doubt a lot of people on here would have.

You're so big on being quoted correctly, why don't you do the same? If you've got issue with what I said, quote it.

here, let me help you...

Responding to your assertion that you have the right to bear arms.

Quote:

You don't have an absolute right to bear arms. This is a forum for people in Korea... and in Korea, you don't have that right. Don't tell me you no longer actually live in Korea yet still continue to haunt these forums... seriously? I hope you're not that pathetic.

-----------------------------

That aside, I now see what a lot of people were talking about in describing your posting style. All sources that support your position are truthful, and the ones that go against you are suspect. Your claims of rights are absolute, even if they are only in your head. You can accuse others of fence sitting, but when you cling to a word like 'could', it's perfectly reasonable. You can call out people using childish names and such, but as soon as those tables are turned, you won't let it go.

I've shown how the US, with all of its gun freedoms, still has mass shootings and higher violent crime rates. I've linked to mass shootings and how most of them do not end with armed civilian intervention. And I've shown how the best you can muster is name calling and baiting.

The only thing I really regret in this thread was joining in with you of a tad in that. I thought it might wake you to the pointlessness of it, but you seem very set in your ways.

So rant on, man. Rant on about your universal right to bear arms. But do us both a favour, next time you come to Korea (this is a forum for Korea and such), be sure to tell that to the people in the airport - you know, about your right to carry guns everywhere and all.

I'd love to hear how well that works out for ya.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:58 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

visitorq wrote:

More propaganda.

how? it seems to me you're just terming anything that disagrees with your worldview propoganda

It's propaganda because like most mainstream media it carries an anti-gun message, even though there is nothing about the so-called findings that would logically show that guns are bad.

Quote:

In the first place, that source is very suspect

why? you can't just declare things so and make it true. the journal describes itself as "An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and others in injury prevention". what about that makes it suspect? this is what i'm talking about.

As explained, it carries an anti-gun message, and yet the study is not even available to be seen. That is suspect.

And just because something is "peer reviewed" does not make it gospel. These studies need to scrutinized and judged on the merits of what they actually contain, not just blindly accepted because the people who write them are supposedly "experts".

Quote:

you don't have positions, you have a religion. anything that doesn't fit into your dogma gets tossed aside.

Nonsense. The point of a debate is to present facts and formulate an argument. The supposed "facts" (and the circumstances under which the study was conducted) in that link were not even accessible (as if I would just take someone's word for it). As for the argument, I already countered it. Funny how you made no attempt at a rebuttal, instead just making a half baked appeal to authority. How pointless.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:17 am Post subject:

Captain Corea wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Captain Corea wrote:

Maybe he took offense to your calling people "pathetic" earlier. No doubt a lot of people on here would have.

Quote:

Do you really want to humiliate yourself on here so openly? Fine then, allow me to quote what you wrote:

Quote:

yeah, I think it is pathetic that you come to a forum designed for people living in Korea ONLY to discuss global politics. You don't talk about Korea. You don't live here. Yet you constantly seek this place out to share your global views.

I do find that both pathetic and disturbing.

Go ahead and try and claw your way out of that one. That's quite a hole you've dug for yourself...

Quote:

That aside, I now see what a lot of people were talking about in describing your posting style. All sources that support your position are truthful, and the ones that go against you are suspect. Your claims of rights are absolute, even if they are only in your head. You can accuse others of fence sitting, but when you cling to a word like 'could', it's perfectly reasonable. You can call out people using childish names and such, but as soon as those tables are turned, you won't let it go.

I just refuted the argument, and rather than come up with a counter argument or rebuttal, here you are back at the table whining again. I wonder why you even bother.

Quote:

I've shown how the US, with all of its gun freedoms, still has mass shootings and higher violent crime rates. I've linked to mass shootings and how most of them do not end with armed civilian intervention. And I've shown how the best you can muster is name calling and baiting.

The US has gun freedoms in the constitution, but that does not mean guns are not heavily restricted in some places, like Washington DC, which is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country. Along with the fact that Switzerland has more guns and less crime, and Mexico having more restrictions and more crime, I've completely and utterly blown your theory out of the water. It's dead.

As to the second part, I've shown that some civilian interventions have occurred during mass shootings, but much more importantly that there are nearly a million cases of people defending themselves from crime with guns each year, which is FAR more than the number of homicides caused by guns. Once again, you've got nothing to counter this.

Quote:

The only thing I really regret in this thread was joining in with you of a tad in that. I thought it might wake you to the pointlessness of it, but you seem very set in your ways.

You just regret joining this thread because you've been schooled point for point for several pages and have shown to be a hypocrite. Hence all the whining, in lieu of actual rebuttals to what I've said.

Quote:

So rant on, man. Rant on about your universal right to bear arms. But do us both a favour, next time you come to Korea (this is a forum for Korea and such), be sure to tell that to the people in the airport - you know, about your right to carry guns everywhere and all.

Laws and rights are not the same thing. I am perfectly aware that it is illegal for me to bring a gun to Korea. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is a "right" or not.

Quote:

I'd love to hear how well that works out for ya.

Okay. And the next time you go to North Korea, why don't you try pointing out to the government officials that universal human rights exist independent of the laws of the police state (and that just because the state has the power to impose laws does not therefore make those laws just). Love to hear how that works out for ya.

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Really? so it's not possible to simply buy a gun across state lines and then carry it over? Guns may be difficult to purchase in one city/state, but when many of the other states surrounding it allow for easy purchases, it's really a moot point, no?

You also love bringing up Mexico in comparison to the US... Mexico. Seriously? Whatever laws that in place there regarding gun ownership, we both know that enforcement is a whole 'nother ball game. Interesting to note though, where do Mexican official think the guns are coming from?

So we've got ..

Canada
-gun ownership is legal but heavily monitored.
-low level of gun violence

US
-high rates of gun ownership with varying levels of restrictions.
-high levels of gun violence.

Mexico
-high levels of corruption
-high levels of gun violence
-restrictions in gun ownership but limited enforcement

Which of these patterns seems to be more successful in limiting gun violence?

In regards to your mentioning of Switzerland, perhaps it's worth noting, as others have done in this thread, that the type of fire arm may be a factor. The Swiss generally own long guns, which by their nature are difficult to carry around and/or conceal.

stilicho25

Joined: 05 Apr 2010

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:27 pm Post subject:

Hey CC, While they to usually have long guns, they carry them everywhere. I saw guys carrying autos in the supermarket. Maybe they just got off drill? No uniforms though.

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject:

stilicho25 wrote:

Hey CC, While they to usually have long guns, they carry them everywhere. I saw guys carrying autos in the supermarket. Maybe they just got off drill? No uniforms though.

Good to know, thanks. I'm curious about their carry and possession laws. I wonder how they view taking them into banks and such. Did you happen to notice many people with side arms, or were they mostly long guns?

stilicho25

Joined: 05 Apr 2010

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject:

It's their version of the M16 I think. Some wierd Euro-rifle. maybe this thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_90 And just like ours, they have everything from a long rifle variant to something akin to a submachine gun. Never saw a pistol, and I don't remember seeing them in official buildings. Just supermarkets, out on the street, etc. This was also a decade or so ago, so things might have changed.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:38 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

As explained, it carries an anti-gun message, and yet the study is not even available to be seen. That is suspect.

And just because something is "peer reviewed" does not make it gospel.

It carries an anti gun message only through your shoddy circular logical construction. "The media is anti-gun, ergo anything in the media about guns is anti-gun"

It is not suspect, that's how journals work. To term a journal "suspect" because it is behind a pay wall is the same as saying "I have no argument, but I'll just tar everything with the same paranoid delusional brush"

Like literally everything you post, it is logically deficient and explicitly, even proudly, paranoid. You are tailor made for the internet. So enjoy your crapulent kingdom.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:35 am Post subject:

Captain Corea wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

No it's not a moot point. Because with the huge amount of guns available all over the world, criminals will always be able get guns even if the general public is disarmed. THAT is the point. THAT is why the public should also be able to have guns, as well as to protect themselves from criminals who are not armed with guns, and even to protect against a tyrannical government.

Quote:

You also love bringing up Mexico in comparison to the US... Mexico. Seriously? Whatever laws that in place there regarding gun ownership, we both know that enforcement is a whole 'nother ball game. Interesting to note though, where do Mexican official think the guns are coming from?

Mexico is a perfectly valid example. Your dismissal of it makes very little sense. Yes it is corrupt, but you'd have every bit as hard a time enforcing gun control in the US as you would there. This has already been proven, since cities with gun bans are rife with criminals carrying guns. Good luck trying to ever change that - it's not going to happen. The same government you would be counting on the enforce these laws is the same government that has been shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels and been caught doing it (not to mention committing every other crime under the sun, including launching illegal wars, torture, looting the economy along with the criminals on Wall Street etc. etc.). No doubt the feds would love to clamp down hard on good law abiding citizens with guns, but the criminals would be left alone or even armed by the government. It's absolutely asinine to assume otherwise given the track record.

Even Canada has many guns. Seriously, if I were a would-be mass shooter and a Canadian citizen I bet I would have no problem getting my hands on a gun there and going on a rampage. But Canada is much smaller (population wise) and has less problems with gangs and does not have drug cartels battling for the world's largest drug market, hence the lower incidence of random mass shootings and lower overall gun crime rate.

Quote:

So we've got ..

Canada
-gun ownership is legal but heavily monitored.
-low level of gun violence

US
-high rates of gun ownership with varying levels of restrictions.
-high levels of gun violence.

Mexico
-high levels of corruption
-high levels of gun violence
-restrictions in gun ownership but limited enforcement

Which of these patterns seems to be more successful in limiting gun violence?

None of them. Because the logic you are employing here is utterly absurd and at the level of a 10 year old. Seriously, there is no causation there whatsoever. I could just as easily post to you:

Canada
-people eat more maple syrup and poutine (or whatever) on average.
-low level of gun violence

US
-not that many people eat poutine.
-high levels of gun violence.

Ergo, "eating poutine causes there to be a lower level of gun violence" Rolling Eyes

Completely absurd. The real causation is linked to other factors, such as the drug war and the US and Mexico having a whole lot more gangs than Canada.

Quote:

In regards to your mentioning of Switzerland, perhaps it's worth noting, as others have done in this thread, that the type of fire arm may be a factor. The Swiss generally own long guns, which by their nature are difficult to carry around and/or conceal.

Laughable excuse. The shooter in Norway used a rifle to kill over 70 people. Try again.

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:45 am Post subject:

How do you know the 'real causation' of gun violence? The war on drugs and bordering Mexico does not magically explain everything away.

You know, Canada too has been battling drugs, has gangs, and has a neighbour that hands out guns almost like candy, yet it still doesn't have the levels of gun violence the US has.

Heck, even in this thread you mention drugs and gangs in relation to Canada...

visitorq wrote:

Captain Corea wrote:

Hey, if you want to compare the US to Mexico... go for it. I was holding the US to a higher standard. If you don't, I'm fine with that.

Sorry to break it to you, but Canadian society is not that special. I've been there. I remember the crack heads on every corner in Vancouver (which is apparently the 3rd worst city for crime in North America). Basically you've got just a couple cities that could even compare in size to mid-level US cities, and the crime rates are on par. In the US, the cities with the worst crime rates also usually have strict gun laws (like DC). So your "point" is null and void regardless of how you look at it.

Anyway, Canada's fine and all, just not much to brag about compared to the US. But hey, if you think it's so incredibly special, you can have it (I sure have no great desire to ever live there - I think I'd rather move to Switzerland Wink

but what you failed to read was that there was still less violent crime than in the US and much lower gun violence.

So your fear of comparing the US to any country it does not stack up favourably against is becoming clearer and clearer.

But if you want to play it safe and continue to compare the US to Mexico, by all means, have at it. I look forward to your gripping stories about how the US is also way above Tonga, Haiti, Jamaica, Columbia, Brazil, and whatnot. Laughing

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:53 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

visitorq wrote:

As explained, it carries an anti-gun message, and yet the study is not even available to be seen. That is suspect.

And just because something is "peer reviewed" does not make it gospel.

It carries an anti gun message only through your shoddy circular logical construction. "The media is anti-gun, ergo anything in the media about guns is anti-gun"

That article clearly contained an anti-gun message. There would be no other way to describe it.

Quote:

It is not suspect, that's how journals work. To term a journal "suspect" because it is behind a pay wall is the same as saying "I have no argument, but I'll just tar everything with the same paranoid delusional brush"

I countered the claims made in that article with an argument (despite not even being given the option to view the data in the study for myself, since it was unavailable Rolling Eyes

). Rather than formulate a counter argument, here you are vomiting out more nonsense about me nuts.

Quote:

Like literally everything you post, it is logically deficient and explicitly, even proudly, paranoid. You are tailor made for the internet. So enjoy your crapulent kingdom.

I feel it's rather ironic to be told this by a netizen who spends his whole life trolling asiafinest and only comes onto dave's when he gets bored of railing against the futility... You don't seem to get that your tactics don't work here. You actually have to form a rebuttal against what I said (and yes, I actually did post a counter argument to that article), or you lose the debate. If you can't handle that, then get lost already. Nobody is interested in your endless trash talking.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:04 am Post subject:

Captain Corea wrote:

How do you know the 'real causation' of gun violence? The war on drugs and bordering Mexico does not magically explain everything away.

Yes it does. There is a direct causal relation there. Drug gang #1 fights against drug gang #2 and a bunch of people get shot. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

Quote:

You know, Canada too has been battling drugs, has gangs, and has a neighbour that hands out guns almost like candy, yet it still doesn't have the levels of gun violence the US has.

Heck, even in this thread you mention drugs and gangs in relation to Canada...

Yes, Canada is far from perfect, but the gang problems there pale in comparison to the US. This is also very obvious, so you can stop pretending they're equivalent. Your "if all other things were equal" argument cannot apply, because all other things are not equal. The US has more guns, but it also has more gangs and drug-related violence than Canada.

Quote:

but what you failed to read was that there was still less violent crime than in the US and much lower gun violence.

I didn't fail to read that.

Quote:

So your fear of comparing the US to any country it does not stack up favourably against is becoming clearer and clearer.

The US stacks more favourably than Canada in most regards. If I wanted to get away from gun crime, there are plenty of places in the US I could move where it would be a non issue (namely a small town somewhere, preferably one where most people were armed). Running away to Canada would akin to running away to some remote, rural location in the US that nobody cares about.

Quote:

But if you want to play it safe and continue to compare the US to Mexico, by all means, have at it. I look forward to your gripping stories about how the US is also way above Tonga, Haiti, Jamaica, Columbia, Brazil, and whatnot. Laughing

Hm, how about I compare Canada to Switzerland, and conclude that since Switzerland is better (more guns, less crime) that the US should definitely move in that direction instead of trying to become more like Canada? (heh, the US aspiring to be more like Canada just because CC says it should - that's a laugh).

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

Yes it does. There is a direct causal relation there. Drug gang #1 fights against drug gang #2 and a bunch of people get shot. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

Only if they have guns. Wink

If gang members can't easily access guns, they will have to settle for whacking people on the head.

If you don't see the correlation between guns and shootings, you're far further gone than I imagined.

Perhaps you're right though, perhaps the US should consider giving up on its asinine policies and customs, and consider being more like Switzerland. Do you think Americans could handle the switch?

Kepler

Joined: 24 Sep 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:42 am Post subject:

As I understand, Switzerland's high gun ownership rate is largely due to the fact that soldiers keep their guns at home. In Switzerland young men are required by law to enlist in the army reserve and are issued assault rifles. They are required to store their weapons and ammunition under lock and key. An officer can enter the home of soldier and do an inspection to make sure that his weapon is stored properly.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:46 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

You actually have to form a rebuttal against what I said (and yes, I actually did post a counter argument to that article), or you lose the debate. If you can't handle that, then get lost already. Nobody is interested in your endless trash talking.

"it's obvious" is not a point, you actually need to support and cite your claims, which you never do. I don't know how you found your way into thinking you could analyze political issues, because the quality of your posts indicates a severe deficiency in argumentation and basic logic.

again, stating something is "obvious" or "suspicious" is a clear indication that you have nothing to back up what you are saying. that needs to be made explicit. you have absolutely nothing backing up your crappy assertions. literally never.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21 Next
Page 16 of 21

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe